I am a Senior Political Contributor at Forbes and the official 'token lefty,' as the title of the page suggests. However, writing from the 'left of center' should not be confused with writing for the left as I often annoy progressives just as much as I upset conservative thinkers. In addition to the pages of Forbes.com, you can find me every Saturday morning on your TV arguing with my more conservative colleagues on "Forbes on Fox" on the Fox News Network and at various other times during the week serving as a liberal talking head on other Fox News and Fox Business Network shows. I also serve as a Democratic strategist with Mercury Public Affairs.

The Madness Of Wayne LaPierre-Will NRA Members Suffer The Consequences?

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on February 10, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If you’re looking for a sure fire recipe to boost gun sales, there’s nothing like putting a heavy dose of paranoia, along with a large dollop of racist fear mongering, into the atmosphere to get the job done—and NRA honcho Wayne LaPierre has certainly done his part.

In an op-ed published Wednesday by The Daily Caller , LaPierre twisted more than a few facts while arguing that the world is hell and attempting to navigate your way through it without a semi-automatic weapon at your side can only be perceived as sheer madness.

However, the true madness would appear to rest within the mind of Wayne LaPierre.

To make his central point that guns are a must in this terrifying inferno we call America, LaPierre treats us to the following—

“During the second Obama term, however, additional threats are growing. Latin American drug gangs have invaded every city of significant size in the United States. Phoenix is already one of the kidnapping capitals of the world, and though the states on the U.S./Mexico border may be the first places in the nation to suffer from cartel violence, by no means are they the last.”

While there is much in that paragraph to respond to, my attention was particularly grabbed by LaPierre’s effort to raise the specter of kidnapping run amuck, knowing full well that nothing frightens people more than the image of someone coming into their home and taking away a loved one. It is an effective use of imagery—despite being wholly dishonest in its use—that makes a meaningful contribution to both the art of fear mongering and spreading apprehension through the employment of racial stereotyping.

While it is absolutely true that there has been an unusually high number of kidnappings in the city of Phoenix, things are not exactly as LaPierre would have us believe.

In 2008, when Phoenix was experiencing the peak of its kidnapping troubles, Mark Spencer—head of the union that represents more than 2,500 Phoenix police officers—noted, “In the past year, there were 359 kidnappings in Phoenix, and not one was legitimate involving a truly innocent victim…”

In other words, the kidnappings were not the result of a scenario where bad guys were invading the homes of the good guys and stealing away their children. Rather, these were bad guys in a battle with other bad guys—bad guys whom Mr. LaPierre apparently wants to ensure are adequately armed so that they can defend themselves in the internal wars that occur in the business of illegal immigration.

This is like arguing in an op-ed piece that the public has an interest in insuring that the Bugs Moran Gang be better armed so that they can more effectively protect themselves from the attacks of Al Capone.

“After Hurricane Sandy, we saw the hellish world that the gun prohibitionists see as their utopia. Looters ran wild in south Brooklyn. There was no food, water or electricity. And if you wanted to walk several miles to get supplies, you better get back before dark, or you might not get home at all.”

Pretty scary, yes?

The problem is that LaPierre’s hellish, New York City landscape doesn’t quite jive with the actual data.

“Murders citywide dropped 86% from Monday, when the hurricane hit, to Friday, compared with the same time frame in 2011, NYPD statistics show. The city has also seen a slump in robberies. There were 211 this past week, compared with 303 in the same block of days last year - a 30% decline. Grand larcenies are down 48%, auto thefts are down 24% and felony assaults dropped 31%, department figures show.”

Because there was some looting in certain areas of the city where store fronts were ripped wide open, there were 271 burglaries in the five-day period following the storm compared to 267 the previous year.

Not exactly the scene straight out of hell as described by Wayne LaPierre nor one that warranted New Yorkers locking and loading en masse to deal with the horrors that enveloped them.

The paranoid op-ed piece goes downhill from there in a tone that resembles something more akin to what one might expect to be the manifesto of a madman holed up in a cabin in the woods planning to wreak his revenge on a dangerous world that just doesn’t understand him. It certainly is not the sort of rationally constructed editorial that one would hope to find in a credible publication.

Make no mistake. I fully appreciate and acknowledge the desires and concerns of Americans—and everyone else in the world—when it comes to protecting their homes and families. And if owning a firearm is what an individual believes is required to accomplish that protection, such is his or her right.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

What a shill! This is what I really hate when somebody is so stupily committed to some cause they can no longer justify go to the stupid, biased comments that they know there is no basis for. The only people who buy this stuff are the ones who faithfully believe it to start with and it sounds good to them. We see this too often when some politician tries to present an argument for something really stupid and just sunds stupid. The rest of us are left needing hip waders, snow shoes and all the BS repellent we can buy.

Now, here’s where I differ. I think Mr. LaPierre’s most ardent and voiciferous supporters will agree with his view of the future and the folks speaking out against him will be viciously attacked by his supporters because that’s their view too. These are folks so ardently convinced all those bad things are likely to happen, including those paranoids convinced the government is coming to enslave them. These are members whose worst fears have been reinforced on a non-stop basis since joining the NRA.

Are we missing something? I don’t see much in the papers about folks carrying with a permit interrupting a robbery or rape or some other crime. Is the contention that lot’s of folks carrying will lower the crime rate overblown? We’ve had concealed carry for some time in a number of states, but I’m not seeing the results.

Well said but the real issue here isn’t the NRA or the American public – it’s the Republican legislators who bend over backwards to secure support from people who AGREE with Mr. LaPierre. I grew up hunting and indeed support the right to own a gun for personal protection, but the “survivalist wing” (as Joe Scarborough has termed them) of the NRA isn’t about that. They’re about protecting their homes from the invading brown people. They’re about defending their property when the neo-Marxist Obama and his brownshirts come to take their guns. And they are SERIOUS. These people are flat-out ignorant but the NRA panders to them like McDonalds panders to fat people because all they care about are gun industry profits. The only difference is the one makes you fat and other allows maniacs to buy assault rifles with 45-round clips.

Rick, Has your article contributed to the discussion related to crime and its control? Intentionally or not, by villainizing Mr. LaPierre you have drawn a line in the sand and forced interested readers to choose a side rather than to engage in thoughtful debate.

The article isn’t about crime and its control, or even really about guns. It’s about someone willing to do anything, including subverting the truth, in a quest to pursue an agenda.

LaPierre of the past was not nearly as entrenched and unreasonable as he is today; he spoke passionately in FAVOR of mandatory background checks, calling them reasonable and good-sense (this was 10-15 years ago, as I recall). He has changed, significantly. He is not on the side of order, or justice, or even self-defense and protection or hunting.

He stands for selling guns, as easily as possible, and damn the consequences or what he has to do to make that happen. I’m an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment and fully believe that every responsible adult that wants to should own a firearm; I believe that everyone (no matter who you are) should regularly undergo basic firearm safety classes. I LIKE guns; I like what they stand for (the weak being on the same footing as the strong), and I like shooting them.

Sorry but that is about the most ridiculous comment I’ve seen in a very long time. If you support LaPierre’s position as stated in his article, that is certainly your right. But to suggest that anyone who tells the other side someone closes off thoughtful debate reveals you for exactly who you are -someone who isn’t the least bit interested in thoughtful debate! Are you going to tell us that LaPierre’s piece was all about thoughtful debate? Do you imagine that anyone-incluing those who support LaPierre-would buy such a preposterous argument. You may agree or disagree with LaPierre’s position, but pretending he offered it as a ‘thought piece’ is embarrassing.